 chair test commissioner LaPenna won't be attending today so if you would like to go ahead and call the meeting to order you're free to do so thank you so much good afternoon good afternoon today is June 10th national independence day and I'd like to call the June 20th 2022 housing authority regular meeting to order due to the provisions of the executive orders N 25 20 and N 29 20 which suspend certain requirements of the brown act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma the shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19 the housing authority commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using zoom webinar commissioners and staff are participating from remote remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda members of the public wishing to speak during item six public comment or during our public hearing items may be able to do so raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission as a matter of housekeeping i'd like to remind commissioners to keep their audio on mute unless they are speaking commissioners other than chair can mute themselves staff will remain muted until needing to speak as members of the public join the meeting you will be participating as an attendee your microphone and camera will be muted only today's panelists will be viewed during the meeting if you're recalling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda for privacy concerns the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number the city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and exclude inclusive environment free from disruption we will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and our well staff to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed if necessary we will also immediately end the meeting zoom host can you please explain how public comics will be heard at today's meeting yes thank you at each agenda item the item is presented the chair will ask for housing authority member comments and then open it up for public comment the host in zoom will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item once the chair has called for public comment the chair will announce for the public to raise their hand if they wish to speak on the specific agenda item if you are calling in to listen to the meeting audibly you can dial star nine to raise your hand the host will then call on the public who have raised their hands public comment will be limited to three minutes and a timer will appear on the screen for the commission and public to see once all live public comments have been heard the meeting host will read email public comments if you provide a live public comment on an agenda item but also submitted an email your email public comment will not be read during the meeting additionally there is one public comment comment period on today's agenda to speak on non-agenda matters item six this is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority thank you um roll call please commissioner berke here thank you commissioner downy commissioner downy yeah thank you commissioner mcwarder here commissioner rawhouser here vice chair owen here chair test here let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner lapena thank you item three statements of abstention commissioner berke commissioner berke um you're muted sorry sorry sorry chair test i'll be abstaining and recusing myself on item 12.3 on today's agenda is consistent with legal advice from jeff berke i serve as a volunteer on both vigil light and assisted senior housing complex recently sold to pep housing and also of course the city housing authority and i have no personal financial interest however funding requests have been before both boards and my participation on agenda item 12.3 could be considered a conflict so i'll be abstaining and recusing myself on 12.3 in addition to that i wasn't at last month's meeting so i won't be involved at all in the questions or approval of the draft minutes from the may 23rd meeting thank you thank you item four staff briefing good afternoon chair test and members of the housing authority before we begin with the staff briefing i just want to acknowledge we have michelle montoya serving as our zoom host today and i lean theory as the reporting secretary and we're very appreciative of them stepping in all of our admin staff is out sick and so um they were gracious enough to help us late this morning so thank you very much and we appreciate everybody's patience and cooperation as we help them navigate through the housing authority so item 4.1 is a staff briefing this is a short video that we will be playing to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the housing authority the city's communications team put together this video with a series of photographs and information on some of the affordable housing complexes that have been supported over the past 50 years so if your secretary can get the video up we will play that everybody one moment the video is also available on the city's youtube channel and there is a link in the agenda so we will distribute that information more widely but we wanted to take the time to share that with the housing authority as it's been underway for several months um question um on my end i couldn't hear the sound is that um playable again with sound or no there's no narration there is some audio there's the music that accompanies it but there is no narration okay thank you any questions of staff at this time seeing them i'm now opening taking public comments on item 4.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you were dealing excuse me if you were tiling in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand and you will have three minutes and chair test we do have an individual calling in it is caller number 5449 if you could hold for just one moment while we pull up the public comment screen sure thank you thank you caller 5549 if you would please confirm your ability to see the screen and um introduce yourself if you so choose that would be wonderful thank you hello can you hear me we can my name is dwayne d with i'm from roseland i wanted to talk about an issue that's confusing a number of veterans of the u.s. military in sonoma county it's been said that there are what are known as hud bash vouchers housing urban development veterans affairs support excuse me vouchers excuse me um dwayne um this particular item is for item 4.1 the video um item six is the regular public comments uh are you able to join us on that particular item item six it seems like that's where you were now i don't have computer access i'm talking on the phone so what do you know um we will there's no other public comments on item 4.1 so we will be next going into study session then after that it'll be public comments again wait a second i can't wait around i'm on a phone i'm away from there can i just finish my comment and be done if you're able to do it quickly sure thank you thank you so the confusion arises because it's said the vouchers are available but then when homeless veterans try to get the vouchers they're told they're not available because they've been um designated as project-based vouchers specifically a recent uh veteran interaction with kim valadez the woman from the veterans administration stated that the only vouchers available were for project and winzer and there's homeless veterans right here in santa rosa and there were vouchers available in the past but there hadn't been a spot that might be used now that there might be some openings for a veteran to get into something we're told this other situation it's confusing to veterans and there are veterans out on the street who thought that the hug dash voucher program was going to help them get off the street and instead it seems it's more about being utilized to help builders to get projects in a pipeline that you have down the road but last but not least those projects are frequently a bit of a bait and switch to the public when they're put forward at the various meetings of the city planning commission etc design review they're uh described as one thing and then down the road people find out that um affordable housing is a big component of these projects and that the housing authority is financing them years in advance through this project based voucher program an example would be burbank avenue apartments or stony point flats both of those projects came through being described as a single family detached type housing well there's a lot of confusion in the area about what's happening with these whole approaches to housing and last but not least affordable housing unit shouldn't cost more than the cost for a new home you can buy homes out there in the community for 400,000 500,000 and on some of the listings I saw today these new apartments are being built for 640,000 dollars a unit so a lot of things seem to be out of whack thank you for listening to my comments today good luck to you thank you okay we are there any other public comments for item 4.1 there are no additional hands raised at this time thank you um item five is study session there are no study session items on this particular agenda so we will now move to regular public comments item six on non-agenda items sure test I see no hands raised at this time thank you moving on to item seven approval of minutes we have draft minutes for may 23rd 2022 uh commissioner Burke mentioned uh that he was not at that meeting um other than that um I'm going to move that the minutes are approved as stand thank you item number eight chairperson commissioner reports do we have any reports from commissioners okay seeing none oh excuse me uh commissioner Downey commissioner Downey I think you're muted I didn't get a chance to ask the question pertaining to the slideshow and I'm wondering if I should just leave my question alone without uh interfering with the meeting um it's if it's something we can answer easily after the meeting I'll be happy to do that I haven't do it Megan passenger presentation oh okay Megan yes commissioner Downey can you go ahead with your question so in looking at 50 years of housing I was curious to know if you had calculated coming closer to our housing needs uh still staying at a good distance from meeting our housing needs and if you had any particular takeaways from 50 years of development in the city of Santa Rosa so the housing needs that are allocated to the city by the association of bay area governments are constantly evolving and those are given to us in cycles so we we as a city approve projects that contribute towards that goal we have limited control over whether or not those projects can be built but certainly with the assistance that the housing authority provides in the form of loans or through the allocation of project-based vouchers we are able to help move those projects forward but it's a constantly moving goal so um in the upcoming allocation we should be getting I want to say about 6 000 units additional units towards our allocation in the past cycles we have not met the goal we've certainly made efforts and in this current cycle that's wrapping up at the end of June I think we've uh come closest we have but there's still a shortfall and a lot of that has to do with the amount of funding that is necessary to assist the units at very low and low income levels and I think the housing authority is all familiar with the amount of financial assistance that is needed in order to advance those projects not just from the housing authority but also from the state in the form of tax credits bonds and then financing programs that are available through the california department of housing and community development thank you thank you for the question um so on item eight um I have no reports to make so I'm going to be now taking public comments on item 8.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair test I see no hands raised at this time thank you item nine committee reports and we have any committee reports you see no hands raised so we will move on to item number 10 executive director reports and communication items so before you today are two communication items the first item 10.1 is the monthly update of the pending development report and so as you may recall we will be providing this to you at each housing authority meeting so that we can easily track the efforts that are being made towards advancing our affordable housing goals and you can have a quick reference for where projects are in terms of either pre-development construction or completion status so this is the june 2020 update that is attached for reference and I'd be happy to answer any questions okay do we have any questions commissioner Burke thank you um Megan uh is there was there any city involvement in the 252 unit Yolanda apartments noted in today's press democrat article uh that that development has a density bonus agreement but there is no financial contribution uh they did receive ugly tax credits from the state so a density bonus agreement or a small number of units in that complex so obviously that that probably falls out of the involvement of the housing authority so it's not shown on this report but uh but there what but it sounds like maybe there's an opportunity for some of the units to be made available it's a lower income families is that correct that is correct projects that receive density bonus and enter into a contract with us are required to have a 55-year reported agreement those units are restricted to income eligible households and have restricted rents and they will go through a lease up process similar to our traditional affordable housing units that have a regulatory agreement so income eligible households will apply those units and we will verify that they are they meet the requirements and that their rents is at or below the maximum rent level for that particular unit so so those would go towards meeting the regional housing needs that is correct thank you just wanted to clarify any other comments by commissioners okay seeing none we are now taking public comments on item 10.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes there are no raised hands at this time thank you moving on to item 10.2 affordable housing proclamation month on may 24 the city council had a proclamation acknowledging may as a affordable housing month chair test had been scheduled to accept the proclamation via zoom but due to a very robust council agenda the proclamation was not read until well after 7 p.m when the frequency had been identified for four o'clock so it was a rather quick reading of the proclamation but i wanted to share it with all of the commissioners today so it is attached to your agenda for your reference we have done these in past years and i think it's important to acknowledge all the efforts that the commissioners and staff put into developing and maintaining affordable housing throughout santa rosa any questions from commissioners seeing none we are now taking public comments on item 10.2 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair test there are no hands raised at this time thank you we'll move on to item 11.1 consent items this is for a resolution of a change to legal name of entity on prior award of project based vouchers for burbank avenue apartments when consent items are brought before the housing authority it is not required that staff provide a presentation to the commissioners if there's no objection or request for presentation i will open public comments do we have any comments by staff by commissioners at this time since there is no objection we are now taking public comments on item 11.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you were dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes we have no raised hands at this time thank you if there are no objections i would like to ask if there is a motion to approve the consent items today to approve the consent items for today thank you for vice chair on we have a second do we have a second to the motion commissioner raha sir you're muted commissioner raha sir not only i second the motion i don't know the proper language to officially second i think you're okay thank you very much we will now move on oh i'm sorry we need a real call vote chair test yes vice chair owen yes commissioner berk yes commissioner downy yes commissioner mcmorder yes thank you commissioner raha sir yes let the record reflect that the item um passes unanimously with uh commissioner lopena being absent thank you we will move forward now with item 12 report items report for fiscal year 22 23 housing authority budget adoption eight gold fine can you hear me yes great thank you good afternoon chair test vice chair owen and commissioners and kate gold fine administrative services officer for housing and community services and i'll present the final fiscal year 2022 23 budget for your approval this afternoon secretary clary can we get the presentation up on the screen please sorry just give me one moment i'm trying to pull it up now okay no problem thank you thank you so much next slide please all right so we like to remind um the authority at the beginning of these presentations the authority's mission that governs its actions is to ensure adequate decent safe and sanitary housing for qualified people within sanarosa consistent with federal state and local law so by reviewing and approving this budget in advance of the city council tomorrow you're directing staff to receive revenue and expend funds to further this mission and uh next slide please um this slide shows total funding sources and expenditures of the authority's administration and two programs rental housing assistance in the housing trust it's a summary at the very highest level of the budget we we discussed this at length at the april 25th study session so i'm just going to focus on what has changed since then next slide please all right there were no changes to the rental assistance or administrative budgets in the housing trust hud announced the final 2022 federal funding allocations on may 17th that's um hapla housing opportunities for persons with hiv and aides community development block grants cdbg and home investment partnerships so hapla allocation did not change it remained at 481 000 and that is the estimate that hud gave us in december of 21 so the changes to revenue and expense that are noted on the slide and in the attachments are the net result of a decrease in cdbg funding and an increase in home so the authority's cdbg allocation decreased a little under $115 000 compared to our estimate at the april study session this is important because administration of cdbg is capped at 20% and public services is capped at 15% of that allocation plus current year loan repayments the decrease to public services would have been over $17 000 which is significant to the non-profit providers who received those funds that's the living room and catholic charities for family support center and homeless service center and the decrease to admin would be about $23 000 so megan and i consulted and reviewed our options and rather than reduce these program areas we utilized an offsetting amount about 115 000 of loan repayments that we received through april of 2022 to fill that gap so this allowed us to keep cdbg public services to non-profits and the administrative funding flat so that resulted in very very minor changes of less than a less than $100 to any funding category on the flip side of that home funding increased by $29,705 compared to our april estimate so 10% of home funding can be used towards administration so we added that funding to services and supplies and the remainder was added to loan activity so the increase that you see on the slide of loan activity of plus almost 27 000 is holy home funding next slide please all right so with that it is recommended by housing and community services that the housing authority by resolution adopt the proposed budget for fiscal year 22 23 and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you commissioners do we have any questions for kate at this time i see no questions i do have a comment on item uh attachment excuse me attachment to which is something i haven't seen before that included performance measures and also the accomplishments that we have made up to meeting city council goals those were two fantastic charts you put together thank you very informative good any other comments from commissioners at this time okay seeing none we are now taking public comments on item 12.1 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you were dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair test we have no hands raised at this time no one's out there okay um i'd like to see if we can have a motion to approve um item 12.1 commissioner berke i think you're muted okay i think that should work chair test thank you i'm pleased to make a motion to adopt the resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa approving the housing authority budget for fiscal year 2022 and 2023 and wave the reading of the text thank you can we have a second vice chair owen thank you can we do road call please yes um apologies commissioner berke hi commissioner downy commissioner mcwarder commissioner rawhauser hi vice chair owen commissioner i'm sorry chair test hi thank you the motion passes um unanimously with the exception of commissioner lapanna who is absent thank you item 12.2 report housing choice voucher program the administrative plan revision utility allowances in the project-based voucher program rebecca lane good afternoon chair test and commissioners my name is rebecca lane and i am the manager of the housing choice voucher program here for the city of santa rosa and i'm here to present to you an item related to the revision of our administrative plan for the housing choice voucher program next slide please so the administrative plan is the major policy document that guides the housing choice voucher program the project-based voucher program as a component of the housing choice voucher program is also addressed in the administrative plan and all revisions to the policies in the administrative plan are reviewed and adopted through the public meeting process including being adopted by the housing authority commissioners next slide please the revisions before you today the proposed revisions are specifically to address the utility allowances used in the project based voucher program so a utility allowance is a public housing agency calculated calculation that is used in determining the estimated out-of-pocket utility costs for tenants who are participating in the housing choice voucher program and that includes tenants who are residing in project-based voucher units the proposed change will allow an alternate utility allowance calculation when approved by HUD in specific project-based voucher properties next slide please the reasoning behind this change is because affordable housing projects often use multiple funding sources to achieve financial viability for their project and each of those funding sources might have different requirements about how the utility allowance is calculated and when a project is using project-based vouchers the federal requirement is that the PHA or the public housing agency utility allowance is the utility allowance that is used for the project however the public housing agency utility allowance is based on federal guidelines and does not well account for energy efficiency requirements that are specific to California new building this can result in an overestimate of the utility allowance which can negatively affect the cash flow projections and financial stability of affordable housing projects next slide please so this issue and the discrepancy between the utility allowances used in projects has been recognized by the IRS and the IRS issued a ruling that will allow properties that are using tax credits to help fund the affordable housing development that the IRS ruled that the project may use utility allowance estimates that are based on a state housing finance agency's determination of the estimated utilities so in turn California created the California utility allowance calculator which is widely used by tax credit properties in California and this utility allowance is a better estimate particularly based on energy efficiency requirements of what the actual out-of-pocket utility costs will be for tenants residing in that project and what this proposal will do is support affordable housing projects feature ones that are currently in the pipeline ones that are already in operation and in the future project-based voucher properties this change will allow or give the property rather the option to request that the housing authority request of HUD the ability to use the CUAC in their cost estimates so this change the steps of the change first the housing authority board of commissioners would approve the proposed change in the policy which will allow us as the housing authority staff to then go to HUD if we do receive a request from a project to use this alternate allowance next slide please so with that the recommendation by the housing community services department is that the housing authority by resolution adopt the revisions to the housing voucher program administrative plan in chapter 17 for project which covers project-based vouchers to allow eligible units where the owner is participating in the low-income housing tax credit program and utilizing a utility allowance that has been created by the California utility allowance calculator to use the California utility allowance calculator in the PVV assisted units if so approved by the department of housing and urban development and I am finished with my presentation and happy to take any questions I share on yeah thank you Rebecca so just for example example basis normally I'll see an allowance rent and then there's a deduct for utility allowance and then there's what the tenant will actually pay and as said at the Fed level and this would allow the project to go based upon exchange numbers but a state utility allowance is greater or less than the federal um I didn't catch the entirety of your question because it was a little um there's some feedback I think but I think what you asked was is which is higher at the state or the federal so um in terms of actual dollar amounts the state tends to be lower because actual out-of-pocket utility costs to tenants in California especially in new construction are in fact lower than what the PHA utility allowance allows for so there the out-of-pocket costs when you use the PHA utility allowance is an over estimate and that's how it can negatively impact the project so the tenants are receiving utility allowance that's too large is that primarily due to the energy efficiency requirements in California versus the rest of the nation yes and so from an other standpoint the property owner they would be receiving more in rent with the lower utility losses that correct correct well look at all thoughts that the actual cost of increasing energy efficiency in the projects thank you thank you commissioner Downey hi Rebecca I was going to ask um how uh the tenants portion was adjusted between high season and low season as far as energy usage or are tenants just um paying an average between the high and low season it's the ladder that the utility allowance is an estimate that's used annually and and so that accounts for seasonal adjustments within the allowance do we have any further questions of Rebecca commissioner Rawhouser yes I was curious as to how the consumer is relating with the with the voucher as far as when they get their bill um does I would assume that this would make more sense in an apartment situation I'm in a mobile home on a section eight and I just got a notice from the care program that I have to reapply so this gave me a huge question mark going what and so um so my question is the relationship with the like who's getting paid this like section eight housing um the the project voucher program is this like how does that like as I'm just a consumer trying to sure stand sure absolutely it's a good question um so this policy change is just specific to project based vouchers um and in addition to that project based vouchers where the project also has tax credits as part of the funding source and so the IRS is allowing the um the project to use california specific utility allowance which we're now proposing that we are also going to approve the project to do the way that that translates as a resident of the property is um that you it really doesn't um your if you're required to pay out of pocket your PG&E bill for example your actual bills that you receive from PG&E should be right on target with the allowance that is being provided to you um through the utility allowance so what that means is um let's say to make the numbers easy if a tenant's portion of rent in the in the property is five hundred dollars um per month but there is a utility allowance or I'm sorry the tenant 30% of the tenant's income is uh five hundred dollars a month but there's a utility allowance of fifty dollars um the tenant's going to pay four hundred and fifty dollars towards the rent directly to the property to the project and that other fifty dollars it's been accounted for by the utility allowance so that will be the same for every tenant whether residing in a project based voucher unit or in a regular um unit out in the marketplace under the housing choice voucher program okay thank you very much any other questions I think Commissioner Burke does Commissioner Burke yes thank you so Rebecca I guess I understand I was I was good I wanted to understand better the financial impact on the residents and the developments and I'm kind of hearing that it's going to be neutral as a result of this is that correct okay that's that's that's important thing to understand and then how did this how does come how did this get initiated was it something that staff picked up or did it come from a request from developers or how did it come about um kind of both uh we have in California this is um this is a not uncommon um and so uh it was a conflict that we were hearing about just through the industry you know conferences and things like that um as on the staff side and then in speaking with other housing authorities about how they um had gone about resolving it we did consult with a few other housing authorities um in California both in northern southern California on on their resolution and that's how we came up with our proposed plan and at the same time we have been approached by developers both who intend to apply you know for future projects or have ideas and pipeline as well as existing projects that have made the request that's very helpful thank you so as I understood you just say it's a case by case kind of process so development a would submit a request to have this change uh it would come it would come to um you or you know to to the department and then it would have to be analyzed and submitted to HUD right is that correct and then HUD would have to approve it so all that individual case by case process um is that a huge amount of work oh well hopefully not we'll see yeah we haven't done it yet yeah well okay as we'll learn and then um and then even though there isn't maybe an impact on the on the tenants is there a process for notifying the tenants and the developments about is it going to look different at all from their standpoint no no no it won't yeah no impact uh you've answered my questions I thank you okay thank you so you know more questions thank you Rebekah welcome we're now taking public comments on item 12.2 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair tess there are no hands raised at this time thank you I'd like to see if there is going to be in a motion to approve item 12.2 any commissioner resolution the housing authority of the city san rosa approving the revisions of the house and choice vote should pass your program and restricted planning project based on your program policies in a way to reading the text thank you vice chair elin was there a second to that motion all second thank you commissioner Burke a road call commissioner ralhazer hi commissioner mcmorter commissioner downy hi commissioner berg hi vice chair elin chair test hi the motion passes with six eyes and with commissioner lapena absent thank you before we move on to item 12.3 at this time commissioner Burke will recuse himself and leave the meeting thank you commissioner Burke thank you and I will leave right now thank you we'll move forward with item 12.3 report on fiscal year 22 23 notice of funding availability funding recommendations Megan Bassinger good afternoon chair test and members of the housing authority before you at the fiscal year 22 23 notice of funding opportunity recommendations next slide please so to give you a brief overview of the process we have undertaken this year in February at the February 28 housing authority meeting we conducted a study session where the commissioners provided input on including rehabilitation of existing housing units as part of the NOVA in previous years we have been focused solely on new construction so rehabilitation was added as an eligible category the ad hoc committee was appointed initially included commissioner Burke that because of the potential conflict he was swapped out with commissioner Owen and so the commissioners that's more identified were commissioners lapena Owen and rawhouser the NOVA was published on April 4th and was open through April 29th we had an ad hoc review committee which meeting which met last Monday June 13th unfortunately commissioner rawhouser was not able to join us but we did have commissioners lapena and Owen who reviewed the applications and we are recording today on g20th with our recommendations next slide please so the NOVA included approximately 10.6 million dollars this is a fiscal year 22-23 funding which you just approved in item 12.1 approximately 7.7 million of this is from local funds 1.1 million is from permanent local housing funds and this is a five-year award from the state of california that comes to the city of santa rosa so this is year two five we had 1.4 million in community development block rates and approximately 360 in pulmon home shuttle funding i just like to note that the cdbg and the home funding are federal funding available to us from hud they do require specific elements of the project to be met for instance projects that are awarded these funds would need to conduct a environmental assessment the cdbg funds can only be used for rehabilitation or site acquisition the home funds are a little bit more flexible and can be used for construction work next slide please so the application scoring that has been previously reviewed and supported by the housing authority includes many categories you'll see in front of you readiness affordability, bedroom size, special needs, project leverage, we also look at the competitiveness of the project if it is pursuing funding from the tax credit allocation committee or through hcd's myriad of branch programs we look at the developer experience and management practices and then also evaluate the onsite services nearby amenities and other factors and other factors can include if there's fire housing authority supports in the form of financial assistance of project-based vouchers or if there are other factors and we'll get to that as we go through the individual recommendations but i would like to remind the housing authority that in a past funding cycle we did make adjustments to bedroom size and special needs so these do a good job offsetting each other concern that we have heard is that smaller size units which are often targeted to senior households won't score as well as multi-family or large family units so we did adjust the points down for bedroom size and we make 12 points available for special needs which would include senior populations next slide please so we are very pleased with the response to the solicitation there were 10 applications requesting a little over 21.2 million dollars so we're definitely oversubscribed as you can see the projects were categorized in two areas rehab and then new construction so for rehab we had two existing projects vigil lights and parkway and then in the new construction we had eight projects mahogany blend stony point flats vermic avenue and then you'll know we have three projects which are subsequent phases of developments that are currently under construction so caritas home space two three five seven five mendicino avenue base three occasionally in senior apartment space two the her and veterans village and ponderosa village next slide please so i'd like to start with the recommended rehab projects staff is recommending that both of these projects be approved by the housing authority and you can see that includes vigil lights and parkway for a total of 2.95 of the approximately 10.6 we have available so next slide so vigil lights apartments is an existing senior complex it is located on rogersway and long drive you'll notice the kind of round star-shaped building in the lower right hand corner that is the flamingo hotel so it's immediately adjacent to the flamingo hotel and the safe way on four street which is immediately below the yellow shape this is located in northeast santa rosa next slide please so this is a rehab of existing units if approved by the housing authority we would add a regulatory agreement to the property for 55 years this project has not been subject to housing authority and regulatory restrictions before the affordability next is 48 units to household that 50 percent of AMI and one unrestricted managers unit staff is recommending that this be funded with federal funding because it is eligible for rehab under ctbg and home they would need to go through an environmental assessment process and it would be exempt from sequela because it would require building plans for that work next slide please the second project that is being recommended for rehab funding is parkwood apartments this is an existing multi-family rental complex on monocled boulevard in raking valley as you can see it is adjacent to the raking valley community park which is located to the right of the rectangular shape and then to the right of the park is maria frio high school next slide please so the rehab of the units include a fair amount of energy efficiency work the affordability for this project is 27 units 50 12 units at 60 12 units at 80 and one unrestricted managers unit this is a project that was previously supported by the housing authority it was acquired in 2019 with financial assistance in excess of about two little under three million dollars from the housing authority so we already have a regulatory agreement in place it was always the intention that rehab work would be conducted on the projects this project also applied last year through the no fund was not successful the work would if it was funded with federal funds would require a need for compliance there is a need for that was approved for acquisition of the site and then it would be exempt from sequel because it was required for some work to be part of the next next um actually i'll pause right there and ask if there are any commissioner questions on the rehab projects before we proceed to the development minister downy the question i have is uh i recently worked on uh we've been having the scoring system and i wanted to ask you to make it what your experience was using the scoring system to rank these applications i think the scoring worked fairly well as we navigated through primarily the new development projects because it was able to create some stratification in terms of the points and we can certainly get into that with the the new construction projects um i think an area where we can continue to refine the points would definitely be in how we apply to rehab because there are areas where we just gave them all the points because it wasn't entirely applicable thank you you're welcome all right so out the new development projects uh excuse me uh commissioner ralhouser has a question yes i was wondering if the sites were slated for uh remodeling or are they going to be like a tear down in a rebuild so these are i'd say the scheme of rehab very minor rehab stairs not tear down rebuilds in the vigil lights example they will need to relocate tenants temporarily while they do more extensive work but um it's refreshing the units of creating energy efficiency through new appliances um heat sources items like that it is not a tear down lovely thank you just an added comment for myself um the scoring of the point system is the same as we used in the last few months so there was no change on uh the methodology on this one from used a few months ago so back to you Megan all right thank you okay so um we are now looking at the recommended new development projects so as i noted in the beginning of the presentation we received eight new development projects so this is where definitely the scoring and ranking of these um will come through much more apparently we are recommending that three of these advance for funding um it's supported by the housing employee and you can see that they are listed here Mahonia Glen which is both unit on the corner of Highway 12 and Calistoga Road in Northeast Santa Rosa in the Marine Valley stony point bots which is on stony point road in southwest Santa Rosa and then bourgeois avenue in southwest Santa Rosa um so we will go through these similarly uh project by project so next slide please so Mahonia Glen is a project that has been previously supported by the housing employee uh a federal loan or site acquisition was provided and this is the old crooked site on the corner of Calistoga and Highway 12 it's a 99 unit uh complex next slide please sorry it's a 99 units um object that is being uh conducted by midpen the farm was our original borrower and it will be transitioning to a limited partnership for construction the housing authority previously lent 2.9 million for site acquisition midpen is requesting two million to assist them with financing gaps that they have experienced as a result of rate increases and a rise in construction costs the project is with this uh challenge of funding will be fully funded and is anticipated to start construction this summer it was awarded state accelerator funds which was a very competitive funding source that was pushed out by hcd in the winter and it was intended is intended to advance projects that have been stuck in the the fine the funding cycles so tax credits have been incredibly competitive and difficult to obtain and the state identified this particular funding source to help advance those projects that have received um assistance from hcd or from cdbg du dar in order to get those units under construction so of the 99 units 98 of them will be affordable 43 percent will be targeted to farm workers through hcd's joe serna farm worker housing program and as i mentioned the project is anticipated to start construction in summer specifically in august we are currently working with the developer to um navigate through the construction loan close so if this was supported by the housing authority we will be looking to um execute our loan documents very quickly in order to meet the construction start deadline fine please the affordability mix which was previously as a regulatory agreement recorded against the site um targets all the units all 98 of them to households under 60 percent of am i you can see there's 26 units to 30 percent 22 units to 50 and then 50 units to 60 percent of am i and then there's also a mix of one two and three bedroom units next slide please um so now to touch on the scoring for this particular project um as you can see it scored all those points of readiness because they are anticipating starting construction in august the affordability there is a significant number of units targeted to households at or below 50 percent of am i and then the remainder to households under 60 percent of am i there are 25 percent of the units that are three bedrooms are larger they have farm worker set aside through the joe serna program they were able to leverage a significant amount of resources from other funding sources if this particular application is approved by the housing authority the total contribution to 4.9 million from the housing authority into the project um it's it's highly competitive in that it received the state accelerator funding and that's in excess of 55 million dollars um mid-hand has significant development and management experience in the bay area and then as you may have seen on the aerial spine it is across the street from the safe way on calisthenics road and near transit services and so the other factors that were factored into this application include the fire housing authority award and the readiness to begin construction next slide please the next project that is being recommended for approval is a new project to the housing ability it's just stony point flats it is located on stony point road in southwest san rosa and it is the blue rectangle that you can see in the center of the spoon next slide please uh so the developer of this project is in tapered housing they are requested 1.2 million dollars and similar to um honia glenn this funding request is to address a um increase in construction interest rates as well as construction costs the project was awarded nine percent tax credits previously so they had been in a position where they were able to proceed and have encountered some financial obstacles um similarly they are starting construction in summer of 2022 next slide please so the project is entirely um affordable to households at a below 60 percent of AMI as you can see 10 units took 30 percent 20 units to 50 and then 19 units to 60 percent or less and there's one unrestricted manager student this project is already received um sequel review and is approved by the planning next slide please so as we look at the points for this particular project again it's scored all 10 out of 10 in readiness because it is approved and it is anticipated to start construction this summer they have 61 percent of their units to households at 50 percent for less of AMI uh a fair number of three bedroom units which gave them all points in that category um five percent of their units are suitable for house uh homeless individuals or families in leveraging um their costs are approximately five percent of their development costs over the low end this particular category and competitiveness they were awarded nine percent tax credits and if i'm remembering correctly they were awarded the tax credits through the disaster recovery uh tax credit competition that was conducted in 2020 and that gave projects time to navigate through the entitlement process um they received all 15 points in their development and management experience this is the same group that recently completed duck and flats which is on west third street here in santa rosa and also received housing authority assistance and then they have nine out of 10 points in the services and amenities for other factors they were awarded three points because they have a nine percent tax credit award which is a highly competitive process and it is a non-offending source that we would want to see the project lose because a red gap in financing next slide please the final new construction project that is being recommended for assistance today in bourbon avenue apartments as you can see is um the blue rectangle in the center of your screen this is looking on bourbon avenue in southwest santa rosa next slide please the developer is wsa bourbon housing partners and this is a partnership between waterstone development and bourbon housing we is um they are requesting they initially requested six million and as we've navigated through the funding process we asked them to reduce their amount to four point four million based on the projects that had scored higher than them and the funds that were were remaining it's a new construction project that was previously awarded cdbg dr funding and we are working with them on that process and they are actively pursuing accelerator funds and mhp to finalize their funding for their project and i also like to know um that there are there are several typos on this slide i apologize there are 64 units they're not all studios it's a multi-family housing development and it will be targeted to families and set aside for at-risk homelessness next slide please so as you can see the affordability next is all the affordable units at or below 60 of am i with one unrestricted managers unit there is um a sequel review that has been completed and as was noted in the full of comments this project is a component of a larger development um the bourbon equity site is a mix of single family duets and then multi-family and this is the multi-family piece of that development and that's how it was originally identified as it went through planning the nipa environmental assessment is currently underway and we are working with the developer and hcg to um conclude that review next slide please so for the points for this particular project are um readiness it's entitled it is not uh they don't have their building commits ready yet though affordability 38 percent of the units are two households at 30 percent or less they have a fair number of units of three bedroom 25 percent of the units are going to target two does at risk of homelessness and to families for leveraging their they got two out of 10 because they are still trying to secure the remaining developer costs for the project they're very competitive in civic and htg and will also be pursuing accelerator funds and the eligibility for that is because they have cdb gdr identified for the project and that was provided by the housing authority in january of 1221 um the developer is partnering with bourbon housing which has significant experience in development and management um in santa rosa they will be near and apart um and there's other amenities and services that will be nearby including for bank management um on site and then the other factors they received five out of five because the housing authority has previously supported them with the cdb gdr commitment as well as project-based vouchers next slide please so this concludes the recommendation um status recommending the housing authority approved five separate revolutions for each project so the first would be to kept housing for 2.2 million for vigilance apartments the second is to bourbon housing for parkwood apartments the third is to mahogany and glenn for two million dollars for construction related costs and the fourth is to stony point flats for 1.2 million in construction related costs and the fifth is to wc bourbon for 4.4 million for construction related costs and i'd be happy to answer any questions okay do we have any questions by commissioners i'm making could you go through what the what you did with the outsourcing with revealing uh review these packages and this morning yes um so as a result of limited staffing we have a staff member out on the and we have uh vacancies uh the department retain rsg consultants to assist us in the note of preparation and review so rsg reviewed the applications and assisted in the scoring and ranking of those they also made the presentation to the ad hoc committee on june 13 um when they did the same consultation with with myself and staff just just some feedback i was on the subcommittee to review these with with the rst myself and the commission were kind of very impressed with their ability to go through all of these little vast amount of information for each application and score them they asked them what they thought of our scoring system because they do a lot of housing jurisdictions throughout the state and they they were pretty pleased with their um the scoring system and thought it was a little bit out so um it was they were a good choice to go through all this the notebook process and to provide the recommendations thank you any other questions of staff seeing none we are now taking public comments on item 12.3 if you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair test there are no hands raised at this time okay thank you oh i apologize we do have um someone who would like to provide comments it'll just be one moment while we pull up the comment screen thank you and mr carillo you should be able to speak if you would confirm your ability to see the screen and introduce yourself if you so choose yes confirmed uh if it ain't going to vice president of housing development with bourbon housing chair test commissioners and staff just want to take a moment to thank the authority and thank the staff for the tremendous amount of work and getting the NOFA prepared as well as in going through the various applications that came forth i'm here this afternoon just to simply support the items before you particular bourbon avenue apartments and the parkwood apartments which are both both bourbon housing projects and i just wanted to reiterate really the the the focus by housing staff authority to work with housing developers particularly affordable housing developers and acknowledge the complexities and the challenges that we all see and confront and it's not worthy to see that you continue to do great work and continue to do so in a way that's meaningful to those future residents that will live in these communities thank you for the time to provide comment this afternoon thank you a friend public comments i see no additional hands raised at this time thank you with excuse me with multiple res resolutions connected to this item we will address each of them in orders as they appear on the agenda i would like to ask first if there is a motion to approve the first resolution for item 12.3 which would be edulina ecumenical properties for vigil light do we have a motion to approve that resolution so the 2.2 million allocation to pet housing for wise properties thank you chair ohan we'll have a second i'd like to second thank you chair downy can we take a vote please yes commissioner rawhouser hi commissioner mcwarder commissioner downy hi vice chair ohan vice chair ohan thank you chair test hi the motion passes with five eyes commissioner Burke has recused commissioner lopana is absent thank you i would like to ask if there is a motion to approve the second resolution on item 12.3 this is for parkwood apartments uh bhdc is there a motion to approve resolution for a similar to 2000 allocation to the parkwood apartment project thank you chair ohan last chair ohan i'll second that motion can we have a road call vote please yes commissioner rawhouser hi commissioner mcwarder hi commissioner downy hi vice chair ohan vice chair ohan chair test hi the motion passes with five eyes commissioner Burke recused commissioner lopana absent thank you we will move on to item for motion on mahogany and glenn associates motion for a resolution approval i'd like to make a motion for a resolution for approval for the mahogany and glenn associates lp in the amount of two million dollars for construction uh related costs for mahogany glenn proposal at um uh two million and the way that the rest of the reading do we have a second to that motion second thank you commissioner roll call please commissioner rawhouser hi commissioner mcwarder hi commissioner downy hi vice chair ohan vice chair ohan i'm just going to acknowledge that i can see uh that vice chair ohan has said hi chair test he's got his hand up hi thank you the motion passes with five eyes commissioner Burke recused and commissioner lopana absent okay the next motion is for stony point flats is there a motion to approve the motion the resolution is for one point two million dollars the stony plant stony point flats project and what do we do to test thank you do we have a second commissioner rawhouser i'll second the motion for the stony point flats thank you roll call please commissioner rawhouser hi commissioner mcwarder hi commissioner downy hi vice chair ohan let the record reflect that vice chair ohan has voted i chair test hi the motion has passed with five eyes commissioner Burke recused and commissioner lopana absent thank you we're now moving on for a motion for the burbank housing partners of four million four hundred thousand dollars prove what do you think bob i'll make i'll make a motion here but i'm i'm sorry who i'm going to approve the resolution for four point four million dollar allocations to the burbank housing partners project on burbank avenue and laid the reason we're out of the tax thank you is there a second i'll second thank you commissioner downy thank you roll call please commissioner rawhouser hi commissioner mcwarder hi commissioner downy hi vice chair ohan let the record reflect that vice chair ohan has voted i chair test hi the motion has passed with five eyes commissioner Burke recused and commissioner lopana absent thank you this will conclude today's meeting the meeting is adjourned i want to thank staff and staff who have come to the rescue for those who are ill and to all the commissioners and and the review process thanks again and have a wonderful day